<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

with change tracking -- Re: [council] New compromise text - gTLDs



OpenOffice version with change tracking attached.  I think this
comes close to being acceptable; I'll try to draft a response now.

On 2003-05-21 16:05:14 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> To: "Council (list)" <council@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:05:14 +0200
> Subject: [council] New compromise text - gTLDs
> Organization: AIM
> X-Spam-Level: 
> 
> Bruce,
> thank you for your comments on the gTLD report. I understand that you made 
> clear that the content of these comments are done by you in your capacity as 
> registrar's representative. 
> 
> As chairman of the gTLDs committee, I support the change regarding the 
> description of the objective criteria for expansion.  You suggest these 
> should be the subject for a future PDP. I agree. The committee has no intent 
> to circumvent a PDP. It was just doing what was asked of it. 
> 
> I am however concerned about the reduction in these example criteria from 8 
> to 3. Specifically, let me comment on your suggested deletions:
> 1. Deletion - "Future expansion should increase the level of competition". 
> You suggest that any extra name will automatically increase competition and 
> therefore this criteria is unnecessary. This seems to mix the idea of choice 
> and competition. Competition is a function on the offering and the supplier. 
> 
> 2. Deletion "names should be for commercial and non-commercial purposes".  
> You say this is a redundant.  Perhaps it is but given the oft expressed 
> concern of the non-commercial constituency that their interests may be left 
> out, it seems wise sometimes to state the obvious.
> 
> 3. Deletion "Future names should add value to the namespace" . I am surprised 
> about this deletion as it is one of the Lynn criteria which were explicitly 
> supported in the Registrars paper. Are you saying that future names may well 
> add NO value to the namespace?
> 
> 4. IDNs - the text in the report was supplied by Jeff Neumann and Cary Carp 
> from the gTLDs constituency after discussion. It seemed like a useful 
> summary. The change you make about delayed implementation is a new 
> undiscussed issue.  (If there remains concern with the text, I suggest we 
> simply delete all reference to IDNs). 
> 
> 5.Deletion "differentiation" - you delete this on the grounds differentiation 
> is achieved if names are not confusingly similar. These are separate 
> concepts. It also disregards an important section of discussion on the 
> committee. The concept of differentiation is central to the papers of the BC, 
> IPC and ISPs. Support from "segmentation" was  given in discussion by a 
> member of the Registrars. It was in the Lynn paper supported in the 
> Registrars position. The latter half of the original paragraph picked up the 
> finessing of the ALAC paper regarding differentiation. 
> 
> The report submitted tried to capture the various sometimes competing views 
> of participants. But I believe your edits go too far in erasing this 
> diversity. In my capacity as chairman please find attached a proposed 
> compromise text (v5) in which I pick up the procedural changes you make (link 
> to PDP) but try to maintain a fuller list of elements considered by 
> participants as worthy of inclusion in that PDP. Version 5 also contains the 
> recent gTLD registries paper. 
> Philip
> 



-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: gTLDS committee conclusions v5.sxw
Description: OpenOffice Writer document